The city council of Town X has proposed reducing the city’s electric expenses by switching all the lights in public buildings from incandescent bulbs to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The switch would be made gradually as the old incandescent bulbs burn out, and the city council reasons that since LED lights burn brighter and cost no more to purchase, the switch would help Town X save money on electrical costs in the future.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to help evaluate the efficacy of the city council’s proposal to save money on electrical costs. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the council’s prediction.
The argument mentions how a city council of Town X’s decision to shift from incandescent lamps to LEDs will help save money on electrical expenses in future. The idea in first glance seems noble but lacks conviction, as it does not answer questions that challenge its claims.
The main question to the claim by city council is that it has not been established that that incandescent bulbs in public buildings are responsible for a major electrical expense of the Town. In case this relation is not established there is no point in changing to LEDs as the expenses would remain the same since the incandescent bulbs were never a problem in the first place.
Another point that threatens the argument is the assumption that there is a need for brighter lights. Has the council conducted relevant research to come to a conclusion that the Town needs brighter light? Would the residents of the Town accept a change in public lighting? It may be a case that the residents may not like to have LEDs in public space and in which case the proposal would be a waste of effort.
The last point put forth by the council that switching to LEDs would help save electrical costs in future is subjective in nature. After how many years will the process of switching from incandescent to LEDs will be beneficial? It cannot be assumed that sometime in ‘future’ it will be effective as the technology changes every few years. And a better technology may just make LEDs redundant in near future. We can ask weather a cost benefit analysis was done prior to this suggestion?
The city councils arguments stands on weak ground as they are not supported by factual information and proper research required to conclude that switching from incandescent lights to LEDs will make a difference in the electrical costs. Without which the prediction of the council would be nugatory instead of an informed decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 148, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... help save money on electrical expenses in future. The idea in first glance seems noble b...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...uestions that challenge its claims. The main question to the claim by city coun...
^^^
Line 7, column 420, Rule ID: ASK_WETHER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whether'?
Suggestion: whether
...Ds redundant in near future. We can ask weather a cost benefit analysis was done prior ...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tory instead of an informed decision.
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.263929618768 0.25644967241 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.161290322581 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0938416422287 0.0836205057962 112% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0351906158358 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0263929618768 0.0272364105082 97% => OK
Prepositions: 0.131964809384 0.125424944231 105% => OK
Participles: 0.0322580645161 0.0416121511921 78% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.697888946 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0351906158358 0.026700313972 132% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.126099706745 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0439882697947 0.0255425247493 172% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0205278592375 0.0127820249294 161% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1909.0 2731.13054187 70% => OK
No of words: 326.0 446.07635468 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.85582822086 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24917287072 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.315950920245 0.378187486979 84% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.257668711656 0.287650121315 90% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.19018404908 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.122699386503 0.135150697306 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.697888946 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 207.018472906 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506134969325 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 52.0182939315 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 21.7333333333 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.909653117 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.266666667 141.986410481 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7333333333 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.4 0.724660767414 55% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 47.500204499 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.92105263158 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.554717221205 0.441005458295 126% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.136519564084 0.135418324435 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0893880584421 0.0829849096947 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.581263548027 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.144530547527 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24155548807 0.193483328276 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114951330272 0.0970749176394 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.422871594537 0.42659136922 99% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0884080407447 0.0774707102158 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.384270205997 0.312017818177 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757068054444 0.0698173142475 108% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.